I had the good fortune to review the baby brother to the MXL 2003,
the MXL 2001-P.
I thought very highly of that microphone for the price and looked forward
to testing the 2003. While both the 2001 and the 2003 are large diaphragm
microphones, the similarity stops there. The 2003 features a 1.06"
capsule coupled through an electromagnetic screen that routes to a FET
preamp with a wideband transformerless output. Its specifications are
detailed below.
TECHNICAL DATA

Condenser pressure gradient mic with large 27mm
diaphragm capsule

Frequency Response: 20Hz-23KHz

Polar Pattern: Cardioid

Preattenuation Switch: 0/-10 dB

Bass Cut Switch: 6 dB/octave @ 150Hz

Sensitivity:16mV/Pa

Impedance: 150 ohms

S/N Ratio: 77dB (Ref. 1Pa, A-weighted)

Equivalent Noise Level:c18 dB-A (A-weighted IEC
268-4)

Max SPL : 130 dB 0.5% THD

Max SPL with -10 dB cut: 140 dB

Power Requirements: Phantom power 48V ± 5V

Current Consumption: <2.5mA

Size: 55mm × 195mm

Weight: 530 g

Metal Finish: Black

The microphone
frequency response is depicted below in the graph. As you can see, the microphone
has a very flat response across all frequencies, employing a cardiod pattern.
There is a very slight peak at either end of the frequency spectrum.

First Impressions:

I received a pair of 2003s from Marshall. They come in a nicely padded
box, the microphone and the SM-3 are bundled together with a small manual.
This microphone feels robust and is heavy. At 530 grams, it considerably
outweighs even the 2001, which felt substantial. Its matte black appearance
is nothing spectacular but is nicely done and looks professional. Having
the MXL 56 bundled with this micrphone is handy and ensures isolation
of the microphone from vibration.

Testing:

Testing microphones is a bit science and a bit art. I set up my system
to record a clean dry signal, I isolated the microphone away from the
noise of my computer and set the input levels as high as I could while
still avoiding clipping. My system is a Celeron 366 (OC'd to 550), Win98SE,
128 meg RAM, 20 gig Maxtor HD, and a variety of soundcards. I covered
my CPU with some sound deadening material, (allowing airflow though),
and I placed the microphones as far away from my monitor as I could. Not
very scientific but as real-world as I could make it. I wanted to test
several different types of sound to hear what the microphone could do.

Discrete sounds:

I ran a comb over the edge of my studio table with the microphone about
six inches away. The microphone picked up the "thrip" buzz-like
sound cleanly with a discrete increment of sound as each tine went over
the desk edge. (As an aside, I ran this sound through some of the DirectX
effects I have on board, boy was that fun. Try it with a heavy flanger!).

I often work early in the morning. I recorded the birds chirping in the
woods behind my house by sticking the microphone out the window. The microphone
captured each birds unique sound. I also recorded my keys jangling and
was able to hear the diffrent sounds each key made against each other.

This microphone is tremendously sensitive to detail - - to be able to
so easily capture the sounds of my comb and the keys indicates that the
microphone is fast and able to react quickly to changes in the signal.
This speed aids in capturing detailed sounds. I became keenly aware of
just how careful I would have to be to minimize environmental noise when
recording with this microphone.

Musical Instruments:

I recorded a variety of instruments. These included handdrums, Gibson
Gospel acoustic guitar, flute (bamboo, Native American), drums, and electric
guitar. I also recorded vocals, both my own, and a choir I am working
with on a project. Lastly, I used the microphone pair throughout a series
of reviews and some projects for this site and personal projects.

Sound Quality:

I have been working on a compilation of my own music and working with
an accapella choir that sings traditional Catholic religious hymns. I
recorded in my own studio and in a church with these microphones. Throughout,
the 2003 was sensitive and accurate. Overall, there was little "coloration",
no overemphasis of any frequency range. However, the microphone tended
to make everything sound very pleasantly full. For more details, read
below.

My main instrument is my Gibson Gospel acoustic guitar. I like to use
Drop-D tunings, and a variety of other alternative tunings while finger-picking
and flat-picking. I am primarily a solo singer-songwriter and rarely work
with others. It is critical to my sound to have a robust, present bottom-end
to provide the rhythm base for my playing. Using the alternate tunings
facilitates this. However, some microphones tend to make the bottom end
of these tunings sound muddy. I experiemented with a variety of microphone
placement positions. Eventually, I used two 2003s, one at the twelfth
fret, 8 inches away, and the other facing the body at about two feet.

I love the way my guitar sounds and have been frustrated in the past
is getting a great sounding recording of it. Using a DropD tuning, I recorded
the initial track of a new song. I played it back through my monitors
and just said "Wow." I was very impressed with what I heard.
The microphone recorded the guitar beautifully, capturing its essential
character, very full, robust and resonant. I often like to put my ear
directly on the body of my guitar as I am playing to immerse myself in
the sound. I had that same feeling in listening to my guitar tracks. I
particularly appreciated the way the microphone captured the bass end
of the guitar, which was very clear, easily distinguishable from the highs.
Overall, the microphone imparts a "presence" to the guitar.
The guitar seemed like it was sitting right inside the monitor speakers,
up front and center.

One caveat, this microphone is very sensitive - - I had to be keenly
aware of my breathing, my fingers on the body and the environment. I could
hear myself breathing in time with the music on my first couple of takes
and had to redo it. I would love to hear this microphone record an open
grand piano. The fullness of the piano sound with its robust bass and
crisp highs would be an ideal application for this microphone.

Vocals:

I have a bit of a raspy affect to my voice. The microphone picked this
up cleanly and accurately (is there a theme here?). It actually made me
sound kind of good. (Must be a good mike!). My vocals tend to vary widely
in volume and in tone, all of which the microphone effortlessly handled.
The microphone nimbly picked up on whatever vocal nuance was thrown at
it. In contrast to the 2001-P, I thought this microphone sounded equally
good on my voice as it did on the instruments. Again, I had to be mindful
of the sensitivity of the microphone, it picked up every breath intake/exhale
during recording.

The choir I am working with is itself an interesting story that I am
developing an article on. The choir consists of five family members and
three close friends, three men and five women. Two of the women sing mezzo-soprano,
hitting some incredibly high notes. But I digress, I brought my PC system
into a local church for a straight to disk practice session. The church
had moderately good acoustics but was not set up for recording on this
day. I used both the 2003 and the 2001 at different intervals and in combination.

I noticed a difference between the 2001 and the 2003 when it came
to recording the female voices. I noticed that the 2001, with its peak
at the top end of the spectrum sounded a bit saturated with these high
notes, whereas the 2003 did not overemphasize anything. There was no saturation
I could detect from the 2003, it just handled whatever was thrown at it.
I was able to discern the male tenor and bass voices easily from the female
singers. I concluded that I could truly trust this microphone to capture
an accurate and detailed recording of the choir's music.

Again, the 2003 was very sensitive to environmental noise, picking up
a ventilation fan in particular, that had not been turned off for the
rehearsal. When I eventually get to the final recording session, I will
be using only the 2003s.

I tested the SPL specification of 130 by varying how loud I sang - -
from whisper quiet to shouting but was unable to make the microphone crap
out. I did not have an occasion to test the preattenuation switch nor
the bass cutoff switch. As a solo musician, I rarely am bombastic enough
to warrant using the preattenuation switch and my instrumentation rarely
reaches below 150Hz anyway. However, these features broaden the applications
that this microphone is ideal for considerably, such as acoustic grand
piano, brass instruments, kick drums, miking electric amplifiers, etc.

Concerns:

The microphone comes with a shock-mount, the SM-3, which was very handy.
It suspends the microphone in a sleeve held up with thick rubber bands.
These rubber bands are secured to a spring steel structure. It works well
as a shockmount - - isolating the microphone from external vibrations.
This is a good thing because this microphone is so sensitive as that it
would likely pick up any vibration sounds that might reach it. However,
over time the rubber bands would tend to come off and I had to reconstruct
it. I was advised that the metal used in the SM-3 is spring steel - -
making it relatively immune to attempts to bend it in. I might risk breakage
if I were to try to bend it in. A redesign that holds the rubber bands
more securely would be a good idea.

The 2003 features a switch that turns on a preattenuation switch that
reduces input by -10dB or a bass rolloff switch. These are welcome features
but you can only use one at a time. This could be a problem if you have
a situation that may need both. Marshall should consider putting a switch
for each to cover this situation.

The microphone is so sensitive that the recording environment needs to
be very quiet, with careful attention to isolating the microphone from
any extraneous sounds. This is a good problem to have but something a
user should be mindful of. Its sensitivity should enter the buyer's consideration
with respect to what the expected environment will be. For instance, I
would not recommend this microphone if it is to be handled at all during
recording. Another instance would be if there are any pedestrian noises,
walking, sheet music, etc. in the recording environment.

Conclusions:

At $399.00, the MXL2003 is a tremendous mid-price value in the microphone
market. It simply sounds great and imparts a beautiful "presence"
to the instrument you are recording. It gives you full-sounding detailed
recordings of your instrument without overemphasizing anything. I was
particularly impressed with the way it sounds on my acoustic guitar. It
would also be ideal for other stringed instruments and any other multi-tonal
instrument that requires a fast, nimble and accurate microphone. Its sensitivity
results in very detailed recordings but may limit its use to applications
where the environment is somewhat controlled and static, in other words,
it is best not move this microphone during recording. In closing, this
is a microphone I will confidently take with me on my next set of projects.